Dwain Wilson wrote:The number of "scientists" who doubt human contributions to climate change are about the same number that still believe in a flat earth. So, you and your fellow non-believers are in good company.

What genius, Tell me it's ain't so. Pollution filling the atmosphere has an effect on it.

Who would have ever thunk it?

Funny how people say that we are destroying the earth. We couldn't destroy the earth if we,..you know.... all the... you knows.... in the world, the earth would still be here. I don't want to say those words, who knows who is watching. Wouldn't be much good to people, if any are left, but the earth would still be here.

We are not destroying it, we are messing with it.

I doubt you find anyone that believes in the flat earth, but those studying the atmosphere are mostly guessing. I am willing to bet the effect is bad, but no one knows for sure

The truth as I understand it is that nobody really knows for sure the short term effects. let alone the long term. Does the atmosphere clean itself over time? How much time?

Concentrations in the atmosphere of the three main global warming gases rose in 2012 to the highest on record, increasing impacts of climate change including ice melt and rising sea levels, the United Nations said.

Carbon dioxide, responsible for about 80 percent of the warming effect of greenhouse gases, gained 0.56 percent to 393.1 parts per million molecules of air, the UN World Meteorological Organization said today in an e-mailed bulletin. The methane concentration increased 0.33 percent and the nitrous oxide level climbed 0.28 percent.

Increasing levels of the gases are at odds with the UN-endorsed goal of keeping the temperature rise since pre-industrial times to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). The World Bank says the Earth is on track to warm by 4 degrees, and UN scientists said Sept. 27 that humans have already emitted more than half the carbon compatible with the temperature target.

The observations “highlight yet again how heat-trapping gases from human activities have upset the natural balance of our atmosphere,” WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said in the statement. “As a result of this, our climate is changing, our weather is more extreme, ice sheets and glaciers are melting and sea levels are rising.”

Okay, Einstein, you got one thing right: the earth is cyclical. But it'll have to wait for us to die off before it will be able to swing back in the other direction.

Trying to draw a conclusion about climate cycles from a 25 year period is like trying to replicate the Rocky Mountains by looking at a pebble. You illustrate the depths of your stupidity. (Which is pretty deep.)

Try taking a look at a broader range using this musical interpretation of climate data. Look at (and listen to) what happens to Earth's temperatures after the introduction of the internal combustion engine right around 1920.

What Climate Change Sounds Like on a Cello

With the sweep of a bow and the slide of some fingers, Daniel Crawford, a student at the University of Minnesota, demonstrates how temperatures continue to rise, with the average global temperature having jumped about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) since 1880. He calls it "A Song of Our Warming Planet," and in the above video talks about how he sonified a set of data gathered by NASA's Goddard Institue of Space Studies that's based on information on surface temperature.

Here's how it works. Each note represents a year from 1880 to 2012, and the pitch portrays the average temperature of the planet relative to the 1951-80 base line. Low notes reflect cooler years, while high notes represent warmer ones. As Crawford plays, a graph matching the music continues to grow, showing that the temperature is rising significantly each year.

“Scientists predict the planet will warm by another 1.8 degrees Celsius by the end of this century," Crawford says. This additional heating would hash out a series of notes well beyond the range of human hearing, though it could very well be depicted like "A Song of Our Warming Planet" insofar as mere words, graphs or video--conventional data visualitzation techniques--would fail.

Those 97% of scientists have been alarmingly wrong thus far. Looks like Im doing pretty well just observing a stupid graph and using a little common sense. Im stupid for using a 25 year window to gauge the temperature increase? I guess we shouldnt be drawing any conclusions of the similar warming period from the late 70's to 2000, since that isnt enough time to draw a conclusion.

Are you trying to tell me that the very small number of vehicles on the road in the early 1900's caused the earth to warm 0.6 of one degree in comparison to the number of cars in the 70's-2000. You get dumber and dumber.

Climate can barely be predicted with any degree of certainty now. But if you think anyone can test some dirt and water and tell us what the weather was like 300 million years ago, you're, well, it speaks for itself...

Climate can barely be predicted with any degree of certainty now. But if you think anyone can test some dirt and water and tell us what the weather was like 300 million years ago, you're, well, it speaks for itself...

I think the word you're looking for is "glasiologist." 'Cause that's exactly what they do. With ice.

Dwain Wilson wrote:Trying to draw a conclusion about climate cycles from a 25 year period is like trying to replicate the Rocky Mountains by looking at a pebble. You illustrate the depths of your stupidity. (Which is pretty deep.)

Not really. If you look at the climate and global warming how can you compare the last 100 years with the introduction of the combustion engine verses the 1000 years before without it. If you choose to ignore just the last 100 years, nothing would be the same. It depends on what happens in those last 25 years. All out nuclear war tomorrow would create a climate that the last 1,000,000 years had very little to do with.

Everything changes. Today we are concerned with global warming, not long ago it was the hole in the ozone layer that was going to allow our trapped heat to escape and it was going the other way.

A guess is a guess no matter who says it. I really love carbon dating. One group of great world scientist come together to carbon date a object and it is 1,000 years old, while another group of great world scientist does the carbon dating and now it's 1,000,000 years old. That's a pretty good spread to me.

You have theory, then you have guess, then you have the all knowing Dwain.

Tell me Dwain, couldn't we could easily evolve to breath methane with no problem, even with gills. Many of those great worldly folks you like to reference have already stated we used to be fish and lost our gills and walked out of the ocean. Those guys know everything.